The word "survivor" has been repeatedly used to describe his victims

How can there be survivors when none of the victims died?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/t2kGwrkw_hI?t=1m37s
reuters.com/article/us-gymnastics-usa-nassar/victim-of-ex-usa-gymnastics-doctor-says-abuse-led-to-dads-suicide-idUSKBN1F52MS
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>when none of the victims died?
well obviously if they died they wouldn't have been survivors

because if youre dead you didnt survive

sage

But nobody died at all! The titanic had survivors because many died. Survivor indicates that you're different from someone who didnt survive.

It's modern feminist libspeak. They called my ex a survivor in my domestic violence case.
Pretty sure they learned it from the Jewish survivors of WW2.

It's newspeak.

While the Jews had their golden years by being archetypal Victims, with the import of niggers and latino in Europe/America and their third-world values (might makes right) being a "victim" is now becoming pejorative. Because it means being weak.

Therefore, victims (usually female) are called "survivors" to make it sound badass.

And yeah, being a "survivor" of being fingerbanged is completely retarded.

I get my butt fingered by doctor sometimes. Never ruined my life.

Seriously though. If I were told that all those prostate exams and testicular cancer screenings were just my doctors being perverted, I'd probably just think, "Hmm. That's interesting. Not falling for that again." I wouldn't feel victimized or creeped out or anything. Wouldn't really care. Doesn't change anything about me or harm me in any way. Some people are perverts.

Get ready for this one folks.

His lawyers are going to appeal and use the video footage of the original court case to commute his sentence.

What should have been an open and shut case is going to be rendered null and void because the presiding judge decided to add a flair of theatrics to the case, with zinging one liners and allowing the audience to cheer and clap throughout.

His lawyers will argue that the presiding judge's actions equated to kangaroo court.

He will never see the inside of a jail cell; because ironically women.

Tbh if I learned that I’d probably set my doctor’s car on fire and call it even

oh fug, big if true

>word choice
that's the psyop part, m'dear

>He will never see the inside of a jail cell
wtf
i mean i get your point but wasn't he already sentenced 60 years for child pornography? that was a different trial, which seemed pretty 'open and shut' considering he's been sentenced since december, haven't heard of an appeal for that one...

This

It's a good thing he was a doctor. Can't tell you how many girls I've accidentally killed while fingering their butt holes.

How could it be a kangaroo court if he wasn’t tried in Australia?

What the fuck is wrong with you fucking kikes? Why are you shilling for a fucking scumbag?

...

>I get my butt fingered by doctor sometimes. Never ruined my life

Male sexual arousal is the crime. If your doctor had an erection while he inspected your prostate he'd go to prison for life.

...

The place is called politically incorrect! That's why they support Trump, defend a child rapist and so on. This place is freedom of speech, even it's a bit crazy

> Seriously though. If I were told that all those prostate exams and testicular cancer screenings were just my doctors being perverted, I'd probably just think, "Hmm. That's interesting. Not falling for that again." I wouldn't feel victimized or creeped out or anything. Wouldn't really care. Doesn't change anything about me or harm me in any way. Some people are perverts.

^ found the guy harboring supressed gay rape fantasies

Seriously though, you wouldn't even demand a refund for the hospital visits where you got raped?

Yea I bet you'd think "hmm that's interesting", over and over while fondling yourself in the shower. Weirdo

Technically, there is no reason why Larry Nassar should be imprisoned. He poses no significant threat when it comes to re-offending or committing similar offenses. In terms of containment, revocation of his medical license and listing him as a registered sex offender should be entirely sufficient as a treatment.

Prisons should only be used as a method of containing violent antisocial offenders who are a significant threat to civil society. Larry Nassar is not a significant threat now that he has been exposed. Ergo, there is no reason to lock up Larry Nassar

The justification people will use for Larry Nassar’s sentencing is that what he did was “wrong”. This, of course, carries the implication that right and wrong are objective values. In turn, this opens the door to cavalcade of questions: How did we arrive at these fixed definitions? By what process is morality determined? How is morality anything other than a matter of faith? Does the state now have the authority to dictate right and wrong? Is the codifying of morality into the law not simply a method of saying that some beliefs are more valid than others?

And it goes on and on. Here is the simple paradox I present: if we accept that Larry Nassar be punished in an inefficient and wasteful manner due to finding his actions extremely distasteful, then by that metric, am I not entitled to have the college staff that has bungled my schedule executed? It may be inefficient and wasteful, but I find their actions extremely distasteful and thus, they must be punished.

this
i h8 /nupol/

If the genders were reversed in this case, there would be no consequences. you cannot refute this point
if i was an underage boy who got a free handy every time i went to practice i would be ecstatic
women are a mistake

Would depend on how attractive the doctor is desu

why? as long as she has good technique and soft hands it shouldn't matter. you don't even need to look at her

I survived my childhood. I am pretty sure no one died.

"i never questioned doctors Nassars treatment

until a bunch of feminists told me it was sexual assault 15 years later"
youtu.be/t2kGwrkw_hI?t=1m37s

Judges scold and insult people literally all the fucking time. All the time. It happens in every city, every day. In criminal courts. In family law courts. In civil courts. In traffic courts.

And for that matter, appeals courts primarily exist to uphold the original ruling while pretending to exist to give defendants a second chance. The percentage of cases overturned in appeals is very very low.

And even if appeals does overturn due to the judges decision to scold a pervert upon sentencing, it'll take many many months for that ruling. In the meantime, a current ruling exists.

Meaning, he's on his way to prison. Now. Probably already there by this point.

You seriously have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

I've seen literally about five minutes in total of this testimony and case and instantly I found flaws in the evidence. i.e. one moment where the "judge" is talking directly to a testifying "victim" and telling her in emotional nonsensical metaphor that she is not a victim, but a survivor or a fighter or some other crap, thus invalidating all claims to the fucking contrary.
The cunt is either a victim or is not. They are either suffering harm or loss by the actions of the doctor, or they are not. The SJW magistrate has just fucked it all up for the so called victims. Not only that but saying things like she's just signed his death warrant is factually, documentably untrue.
The doctor needs to a hire an equivalent of a QC and grill every one of those cunts who couldn't keep her mouth shut.
And having said all that, the doc needs a severe old school bare knuckle beating for having the audacity to finger another mans children and he should be doing jail time equivalent to the actual harm or loss caused to the young hoes, which could run into a number of months equal to the total time they spent being fingered and embarrassed in their lives, or otherwise state the damages endured. So about five or ten years in prison seems about right.

America instituted a lot of "tough on crime" laws in the 80's and 90's with tough mandatory sentencing.

A few months for sexually assaulting a minor just isn't realistic, in this instance. Particularly since he did it over and over.

No, the judge did not display any kind of theatrics or flair prior to the sentencing. All her "attacks" on him came after the sentence was already given. It's a non issue and you can see a lot harsher words by judges in different cases in a similar manner where they lash out after handling out a sentence, this one just happened to be on TV.

>The justification people will use for Larry Nassar’s sentencing is that what he did was “wrong”. This, of course, carries the implication that right and wrong are objective values. In turn, this opens the door to cavalcade of questions: How did we arrive at these fixed definitions? By what process is morality determined? How is morality anything other than a matter of faith? Does the state now have the authority to dictate right and wrong? Is the codifying of morality into the law not simply a method of saying that some beliefs are more valid than others?

>And it goes on and on. Here is the simple paradox I present: if we accept that Larry Nassar be punished in an inefficient and wasteful manner due to finding his actions extremely distasteful, then by that metric, am I not entitled to have the college staff that has bungled my schedule executed? It may be inefficient and wasteful, but I find their actions extremely distasteful and thus, they must be punished.

All of that is specious and simpleminded. There are at least two reasons for retributive justice. Firstly, the state brings injured parties back into the fold of society by demonstrating its solidarity with the victims. Secondly, it the state religitimizes itself by prosecuting the law. Someone who breaks the law has injured the state itself, if the state does not redress that injury the state loses legitimacy.

There's no need for objective values, only contextual ones i.e. the law of the land.

But would we be any less safe if he was confined to life in house arrest and permanent sex offender status? That's the point that I'm getting at here.

I paid a doctor $800 to put a camera dildo up my butt when I was pooping blood. Can I sue for sexual molestation and be called a survivor too?

>Firstly, the state brings injured parties back into the fold of society by demonstrating its solidarity with the victims.

So in other words, by sending the mean doctor to jail, it magically un-fingers all those gymnasts?

>Secondly, it the state religitimizes itself by prosecuting the law. Someone who breaks the law has injured the state itself, if the state does not redress that injury the state loses legitimacy.

By that logic the state's actions at Waco and Ruby Ridge were justified, since it legitimizes the state via redressing a percieved injury.

Technically he broke federal and state laws when it comes to sexual contact with the underage victims.

Your entire post is a mess, you position that he technically should not be imprisoned then you argue about the morality of the law He broke the law as it is, morality has nothing to do with it.

anyone who is alive is a survivor of any events that took place in their life

dumb nigger

> By that logic the state's actions at Waco and Ruby Ridge were justified, since it legitimizes the state via redressing a percieved injury.

Exactly! Glad you understand now.

And I'm saying that the law is stupid. There's no inherent need to lock him up in full-blown prison, because I don't think he poses any significant risk of re-offending. Alternative containment measures would be much more cost-effective and don't give off the air of state-mandated torture.

So then what you're saying is that the state is by nature antithetical to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

The state has nothing to do with the law of the land. If you want law of the land, that's a court of record, man to man in front of a jury where the judge shuts the hell up and the jury decides guilt.

...

So why are you using the word technical as if he didn't commit a crime? He broke the law as it stands, therefor he must be punished according to the law.

He is guilty by law, whether or not the law is correct in whatever morality you are trying to apply to it is irrelevant. Like I said, your entire post is a mess.

>So in other words, by sending the mean doctor to jail, it magically un-fingers all those gymnasts?

No, it's serves the function of being a release valve for vengeful feelings. You generally don't want people believing that in order for them to get justice they have to take the law into their own hands.

>Secondly, it the state religitimizes itself by prosecuting the law. Someone who breaks the law has injured the state itself, if the state does not redress that injury the state loses legitimacy.

Weren't you just arguing against objective values?

reminder that you can't survive rape
once it happens you are used goods sweetie, we don't want you, you are worse than a coal burner

He wasn't tried with the law, he was tried essentially with precedent, which is basically opinon.

>How can there be survivors when none of the victims died?
Before I give you a real answer, I have to point out that one of the victims - whose mom represented her - is dead. She committed suicide at 23. Clelsea Markham was sexually abused when she was 10. She got into drugs ever since and slowly self-destructed. Needless to say, Chelsea is not a survivor.

Now think of the girls/women that testified against Nassar over seven days. They've most likely felt like killing themselves over it, especially knowing they couldn't report it, or if they did, nobody believed them or any investigation would be delayed. That's how they are survivors.

>She got into drugs ever since and slowly self-destructed.
>She got into drugs
>She

You're arguing semantics, and english isn't even your first language, nordcuck.

>No, it's serves the function of being a release valve for vengeful feelings.

That's a really shitty justification

>You generally don't want people believing that in order for them to get justice they have to take the law into their own hands.

That's what therapy, counseling, and learning to let go is for.

>Weren't you just arguing against objective values?

Liberty is the absence of objective values, because it means every man is god, with the ability to decide what is right and wrong for himself. The state, by its nature, decides on a definition of right and wrong and enforces it regardless of how anyone feels. So for the most part, the state is an enemy of a morally nihilist society.

What point are you trying to make? Here's an article detailing Chelsea Markham to clear any confusion.

reuters.com/article/us-gymnastics-usa-nassar/victim-of-ex-usa-gymnastics-doctor-says-abuse-led-to-dads-suicide-idUSKBN1F52MS

And of course it's the job of society to kill men ("I just signed your death warrant") based on what women "most likely" "feel" on a given day.

Your position is everything wrong with how this guy was prosecuted, and the actions of this court are a far greater danger to society than Nassar ever will be.

Whatever. Nothing personnel kid

>he took his own life
>he

> So then what you're saying is that the state is by nature antithetical to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

That's literally not what I or anyone else are saying but if you'd like to have this other completely different conversation that's fine.

By your logic, did this doctor deprive his victims of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness?

One victim complained that she can't go to doctors without a witness anymore.

Another complained that debt collectors from MSU are still aggressively pursuing her mom for lack of payment for the good doctors "services"

You're asserting that the damage is done, and that now the victims simply need to "get over it"

What I'm informing you is that this is unrealistic, given the age, vulnerability and psychology of at least some of his victims. Some probably have gotten over it. Others have not yet. It's not a crime to bear a grudge.

Our American society has decided to implement uniform punishment based on the lowest common denominators inability to "get over it". These mandatory sentencing guidelines were put in place all throughout the 80's and 90's, and are the law.

Don't like em? Vote out all the Republicans who created em.

He fondled dozens of little girls. He was found guilty of dozens of counts. He now faces dozens of back to back sentences with mandatory sentencing guidelines.

This is the reality of the United States you live in. Arguing against it is rather futile. Tough on crime sentencing has a lot of public support. Also, sky is upward. Enjoy your red pill.

(It's always weird when liberals like me come on here and force some idiot neolibertarian to eat a red pill)

says the feminazi!

> because I don't think he poses any significant risk of re-offending

That's a very nice opinion you've formed. What was your sample base for conducting this psychological evaluation? Watching the television?

>Don't like em? Vote out all the Republicans who created em.

...and vote in Democrats who want to uphold them? I'm not quite sure what point you're going for here.

I'm basing it on the lack of evidence presented that would state that yes, he is likely to re-offend. If there's evidence to the contrary, I'd be open to it.

He's been already sentenced to 60 years in a CP possession case.

You Sup Forumstards are just armchair tardlads.

THERE IS A PROBLEM IN MY COUNTRY

Did he really abuse them? Because I have a really strange feeling that he didn't and that they framed him. Especially with all the theatrics, what a shit show

Do you know how many death camp survivors there were?

You could always vote third party. Hahahaha. Sorry I couldn't even type that without laughing. Ooh ooh what about Ron Paul!! He'll save America!

I mean, other than the fact that he sexually assaulted dozens of girls hundreds of times and was completely unremorseful in court, sure I don't think he represents a threat at all!

You're saying we should let him go free and open up a daycare maybe?

How does that pertain to him re-offending?

Yes, user. All 160 of them.

What the fuck does it take for fags like you to admit that a man with easy access to underage girls during a span of 20 years abused them?

I bet you also believe Jimmy Saville was framed, faggot.

>How does that pertain to him re-offending?

Mouth breathing retard. Don't quote my posts unless you grow a brain before.

^ one of these posters took the pedobear threads on Sup Forums a little too seriously

Women are fucking drama queens
some guy on the street could bantz them and they would make up some story about how they could have died and they are a stunning and brave survivor.

I agree that he should not be in prison
I think he should be hung, electrocuted, beheaded, shot, gassed..etc
There should be a maximum amount of time that one can be in prison for and any sentence longer than that should automatically be a quick death sentence....as in death comes in a matter of days
And prison should be more like a boot camp crossed with a chain gang....a place where criminals are trained to be decent members of society and work their asses off for the privilege of being given a second chance at life.

I'm not talking about the story with the dad committing suicide on a separate instance of a girl being abused by Nassar. I'm talking about Chelsea Markham's suicide. lrn2read

>You're saying we should let him go free and open up a daycare maybe?

I'm suggesting lifetime house arrest with possibility of parole, with permanent, indefinite registration as a sex offender and all the restrictions and surveillance it entails. In other words, containment and restraint in the least judgemental way possible.

Words and terms are losing their meaning

>Whatever
What a revealing response from a defender of "female victims" to the idea that any man might be wrongfully put to death.

...

Happened upon some court footage earlier this day.
Got to say, seeing SO MANY FUCKING WOMEN in a court-room really freaked me out.

And I'm not talking about witnesses/victims and whatnot; I'm talking
the judge, the stuff, even the fucking police officers where women.
Really weird and instantly grew me suspicious of what's going on, despite the fucker being undoubtedly a sicko.
Felt like a charade, a "womyn powah, a womansplaining court-case if you will.

>Am I weird?

Seek help

Da comrade, and we must murder those filthy grain-hoarding kulaks! They're enemies of the revolution!

Such a low quality bait, with a meme-flag to boot.
No keks for you, Abdul!

I read it just fine. It appears there's a history of suicidal tendencies in the family.

I survived this thread

The irony is reading threads like this while skimming pizzagate threads.

Apparently Sup Forums is fine with pedophilia, just not following up pedophilia with ritual sacrifice.

WAY TO TAKE THE HIGH ROAD GUYS!

>the least judgemental way possible
I'm going to wager you're a male.

This event was a show trial, a violent ritual dismemberment of the "evil predator man," for the emotional benefit of women.

It's the kind of thing one would expect from an all-female "Lord of the Flies."

(For the mentally challenged: that's neither a comment on nor analysis of whatever Nassar did. The crucial point is the State conducting "trials" that pander to the hurt feelings of women - instead of judging only the objective standard of the law - is unsustainable collective insanity.)